taxation – Page 11 – Turtle Talk

Whether a generally applicable state ad valorem tax, as assessed against personal property owned by a non-Indian, out-of-state corporate entity and leased to a tribe for use in its casino operations, is preempted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Court’s “particularized inquiry” balancing test, see White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), where the tax does not infringe on any federal regulatory purpose contained in the IGRA, the tax does not interfere with any tribal sovereignty interests, and the tax supports relevant and important government interests, such as law enforcement, schools and health services.

Lower court decision here.

UPDATE:

Tulsa County Assessor Amicus Brief

Cert Opp Brief

State of Washington Bill to Authorize Tax Compacting with Tribes

March 31, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Joint Committee on Taxation Report on Taxation of Indians and Tribes

March 2, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. (jct-report.pdf)

South Dakota Cert Petition in IGRA Preemption Case [updated with cert stage materials]

February 28, 2020May 5, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Noem v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe:

noem-v-flandreau-cert-petition.pdf

appendix-2.pdf

BIO

Question presented:

Does the Bracker test currently serve as a consistent and predictable rule of law in light of the exponential expansion of Indian gaming since 1988 and the fiscal demands the industry now places on state budgets?

Lower court materials here.

California COA Permits Possessory Tax on Leased Trust and Allotment Lands

February 11, 2020February 11, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Herpel v. County of Riverside:

Native Wholesale Supply v. California ex rel. Becerra Cert Petition

February 10, 2020July 27, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Native Wholesale Petition

Appendix

Questions presented:

1. Whether a contract for the purchase of goods entered into, and fully performed by, an Indian Tribe outside the exterior boundaries of the state in which the Tribe’s reservation is located can constitutionally subject the out of state vendor to the specific personal jurisdiction of the buyer’s state, under state laws purporting to regulate the sale of those goods in the buyer’s state.
2. Whether a state has specific personal jurisdiction to regulate a purchase of goods contract between an Indian on an Indian reservation outside the state and an Indian Tribe located within the state’s boundaries when the contract is performed on the
out of state Indian reservation.
3. Whether there is a constitutional or statutory right afforded to an Indian of one tribe to conduct business free from state regulation with an Indian of a different tribe, both of which are located in Indian country, under the Indian Commerce Clause.
4. Whether a tribally chartered corporation wholly owned by a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe is an Indian for purposes of the protections afforded to Indians under federal law.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Brief in Opposition

Tulalip Tribes Enter Into Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement with State of Washington re: Quil Ceda Village

January 30, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is news coverage.